JS Mill,
WA was going through a boom at the time. That's why everyone was getting on the bandwaggon. Cooks were getting paid $100,000 plus p.a.
That's fine if you live in WA. But what if you live in Tasmania or regional Australia where, if the market ruled, your pay would be driven down by workchoices. The market is great in privileged areas in boom times. It's a disaster in difficult times because the market has no compassion. The market has no empathy. Employees are merely cogs in the system.
The problem with all these market forces theorists is that they appear to be totally lacking in the capacity to see the world from another perspective, a perspective which is not as privileged as the one they occupy.
Just as a side issue I bet those people you know in WA aren't as enamoured of workchoices now that the economy has slowed and minerals prices have slumped 40%.

The early comments here are typical of the blind emotional response usually exercised by those needing to protect their petty prejudices.

Go back and read the first few paragraphs. The article is about pragmatic policy – not the secondary issue of market power. As the Soviets found, while the bargaining between labour and capital is important, any perceived imbalance can't be a foundation for policy if we lack a practical mechanism to ensure fair outcomes.

The Government has said it’s counter-productive to attempt to nail down the right price for groceries and fuel. This principle is relevant for IR. But rather than argue on this basis – how is FWA going to juggle the conflicting claims of workers and employers in a dynamic, open economy? – it becomes about right-wing politics, economists and wishful thinking.

The only wishful thinking here comes from those willing to put their faith in legislation and bureaucracy to produce a better world.

I don't put my faith in "legislation and bureaucracy to produce a better world." I put my faith in solidarity and direct action. The same way our forefathers smashed the old day capitalists into giving us the semi humane rules of work we have now. Give us workers back the power over unions and sack the fatcat union leaders and let workers take their true place in the "market". Repeal the laws against strikes and boycotts and greenbans and then we might see a rebalancing of the power relationships and the disparity of income and effort that characterises modern day feudocapitalism.

I put my faith in "legislation and bureaucracy to produce a beter world", in other words, the rule of law is essential to civilised life. Without collective action through unions and legislation most workers would be at the mercy of their predatory employers. A so called "free" labour market is a sinister, self serving lie.

Shal, "I bet those people you know in WA aren't as enamoured of workchoices now that the economy has slowed and minerals prices have slumped 40%"

I've wondered about that but also wondered how many would have been happier if they had been able to negotiate with an employer pay packages which might have kept them employed but at lesser rates. This is not just the difference between workchoices and FWA, it also includes not having a job at all in an area where there are few jobs.

For some a reduction in pay during a downturn would be unworkable, for others it may mean keeping some earned income coming in. It may mean staying in the employment pool and keeping skills up until things improve vs having to relocate to seek work, having to move into a different field or be unemployed for a sustained period.

No one answer will ever fit everyone but I do strongly believe that in the end we should be allowed to make the choices which fit our own circumstances and needs. Those living in remote areas may not have the option of looking for other employment in the area, they may not have a market for a home they owe money on, they may not have access to skill retraining or the other stuff available to those of us with access to major centers have.

FWA, does not create compassion in the market for some in difficult times, it just limits the options available to reduce costs to get through the tough times.

If I was a worker in a remote area who liked the life I'd rather make my own decisions about what was fair pay than have Canberra make it for me.

R0bert

<< If I was a worker in a remote area who liked the life I'd rather make my own decisions about what was fair pay than have Canberra make it for me. >>

To which I'd add, I rather make my own decisions regarding my employment conditions than have a profit motivated executive make it for me.

Before "Work Choices" individual employees always had the opportunity (depending on employer) to negotiate above award rates and other considerations. What W/C achieved was to remove a basic level of wage which had been set as reasonable for the type of work. At least with award rates there is a level beneath which an employer cannot go. Also an employer of huge numbers of people, simply does not have the time to negotiate individually with each and every employee. I recall a number of employers, during the Howard years, stating they preferred the award system, because they were provided with a standard from which they could add extras if they chose.

To encourage workers to remote areas, higher pay had always been on offer (irrespective of Work Choices), and many took advantage of this largesse, including landlords; rents for the most basic accommodation soared beyond reason in the outlying regions of W.A.. A good employer would negotiate with prospective employees, deals, including extras to cover or assist with the expenses of living in a remote area. The abolition of W/C doesn't change any of this.

I agree with other posters who have pointed out the inadequacies of comparing grocery buying to negotiating wages as a very poor analogy indeed. The employee will always be dependent on the good graces of an employer, whereas the grocery buyer can always go to another store (except in remote areas, I'd like to note).